New World Order Moves To Criminalize Dissent

Saddam Hussein may stand a better chance of a fair
trial in Iraq, where he will face trial, than in the

International Criminal Court
, into whose

the Bush administration has decided the
former Iraqi dictator won`t fall.

A body similar to the ICC, set up to try such
offenses as "genocide" and "human rights
is well on the way to outlawing
actions—including speech—that are not criminal, and the
ICC itself may soon do the same.

Last month, when Saddam was still

in his

hiding place
, the United Nations`

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
, seated
in Tanzania, convicted three Rwandan media executives
for their role in causing the mass slaughter of the
Tutsi tribe in 1994. What they did to "cause" the
genocide was simply talk about it.

Two of the Rwandan defendants—Ferdinand Nahimana and
Hassan Ngeze—were sentenced to life imprisonment; the
third, Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza, got 35 years in the
pokey. Not one of them ever lifted a finger to commit
violence, as the court`s judges readily acknowledged.

"You were fully aware of the power of words, and
you used the radio—the medium of communication with the
widest public reach—to disseminate hatred and violence,"

intoned the presiding judge,

Navanethem Pillay
. "Without a firearm, machete or
any physical weapon, you caused the death of

thousands of innocent civilians."

What the defendants really did was run radio stations
sponsored by the Rwandan government under the dominant
rival tribe of the Hutus called

"Radio Machete" and
"Radio Hate,"
as well as a weekly
newspaper that devoted itself to urging the
extermination of the Tutsis.

No doubt what the stations broadcast and the
newspaper published was not very edifying. But as a
serious act of law and morality, the

sentences they received
are preposterous.

They`re preposterous because, contrary to what the
judge pronounced, words do not and cannot "cause"
murder, let alone "thousands" of murders. There
are legitimate laws that circumscribe irresponsible
speech (shouting

fire in a theater
is the classic case) or

inciting violence
, but merely advocating murder is
not the same thing.

Even if it falls under incitement, it`s still not the
same as murder itself, which is what the three were
punished for. The people who do the actual killing make
their own decisions to carry it out, regardless of what
they`ve read in the newspapers or heard on the radio.
You punish the killers, not the people who wrote or
spoke the words, let alone the managers who ran the
stations or the papers.

Nevertheless, "human rights advocates" hailed
the verdicts as a giant step toward the Global Reign of
Virtue they are licking their whiskers to set up and

"This is the first time that journalists have been
convicted for their participation in genocide, and I
think it`s a wake-up call to hatemongers everywhere that
they can`t incite people to commit genocide or ethnic
gloated Reed Brody of the

Human Rights Watch
. "If you fan the flames,
you`ll have to face the consequences."
words a war crime
, By Betsy Pisik, The
Washington Times
, December 4, 2003]

The Tribunal`s verdict comes

right out of the law
that set it up. The U.N.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
to which the United States is a signatory, explicitly
outlaws "hate speech": "Any advocacy of
national racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence
shall be

prohibited by law."

We now know that covers advocating genocide. What
else does it cover?

Gibson`s movie
about the crucifixion of Christ?
Scientific research on racial differences in IQ? Defense

or the

Confederate flag
? Denial of the


There are many people who say each and every one of
these incites "discrimination, hostility or violence"
and constitutes "national racial or religious

What the ICC does is not

necessarily law
in the

United States
, but one danger of the court`s verdict
is that it could be used to enact such laws and sets a
precedent for the International Criminal Court itself.

In this country, there are

lots of people
who would like to outlaw any
expression of dissent on



matters. Several otherwise law-abiding
people who express such dissent have already been

victims of police crackdowns
, mainly for their

views and associations

The criminalization of

dissident speech and thought
in race, ethnicity,
nationality and religion is a

basic pillar
of the New World Order now taking shape
under American bayonets in

and across the planet.

The masters of the New Order can`t expect to run it
harmoniously if the different races, religions and
nations they manage are free to think and say what they
want about each other.

Therefore, freedom has to go.

The power of the planet`s new master class will stay.



[Sam Francis [email
him] is a nationally syndicated columnist. A selection
of his columns,

America Extinguished: Mass Immigration And The
Disintegration Of American Culture
, is now available

Americans For Immigration Control.

Click here
for Sam Francis` website.


to order his monograph
Ethnopolitics: Immigration, Race, and the American
Political Future and
here for
Glynn Custred`s review.